/m/rangers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

He made the decision to punt this year for purely personal reasons -- a far worse affront to the game's integrity than anything Pete Rose's alleged improper balancing of the present and the future.

Laughable.

Players make decisions like that all the time. When a player decides to accept surgery immediately instead of trying to rehab the injury and pitch later that year, that's definitely for personal reasons.

What part did the MLBPA play in this? I understand that they have informed members that they won't fight for them if there really is evidence showing that the player used PEDs. Is this true? And if so, is that part of the reason Cruz (and others) decided not to appeal in this situation?

I've never heard that, JD. And I don't think that the MLBPA would want to publicize that. I would, however, find that surprising.

I will have to check the threads, as I thought I saw it here. It was not publicized, but something anonymously sourced. Essentially, if MLB had real evidence, the MLBPA would not invest heavily in a defense. My recollection is that this was perceived as a nod to those players upset over PED use.

Unfortunately, I have only my recollection on this right now, and I think this was a month or so ago, so it is very possible (perhaps even likely) I am messing this up. I will see if I can find that thread.

I'll admit that I didn't follow Cruz's case closely, but has anyone explained why MLB thought it could legitimately suspend Cruz for 100 games on a first-time offense?

For the same reason they think they can suspend ARod for 214 games for a first offense? The JDA is somewhat vague when it comes to punishments for offenses that aren't triggered directly by testing. So they kinda sorta have a leg to stand on at least. I seriously doubt their logic will fly in front of an arbitrator though. But what I don't doubt is that they are getting a minimum of 50 games, unless the evidence MLB has is completely unsubstantiated*. So if you are facing a minimum of 50 anyway, why take the outside shot at getting more than that, and put yourself through the press and bad publicity that will come along with the appeals process?

I'd be pretty pissed off if I were a player. Even if you have used PEDs and don't contest it, you deserve the legal protections and bargaining power (for punishment) of the union. I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure these guys pay big-time union dues.

I don't like the Westboro Baptist Church, for instance. But if a municipality tried to ban them from a protest, I'd support their right to assemble.

Union head Michael Weiner told the New York Daily News that the MLBPA is "not interested" in protecting players for whom overwhelming evidence exists that they used performance-enhancing drugs.Although he did not refer to any specific players in his interview Wednesday with the Daily News, Weiner emphasized that the union has prioritized a clean program. He told the paper that the union will attempt to "make a deal" for players with overwhelming PED evidence against them.

"I can tell you, if we have a case where there really is overwhelming evidence that a player committed a violation of the program, our fight is going to be that they make a deal," Weiner told the Daily News. "We're not interested in having players with overwhelming evidence that they violated the [drug] program out there. Most of the players aren't interested in that. We'd like to have a clean program." [...]

Weiner also said the commissioner's office isn't bound by the terms of the joint drug prevention and treatment program -- which calls for 50- and 100-game suspensions followed by a lifetime ban for three failed drug tests -- because the players involved in the Biogenesis case did not fail tests and are being investigated for "non-analytical" reasons."

In theory, [the players] could be suspended for five games or 500 games, and we could then choose to challenge that," Weiner said Tuesday before the All-Star Game. "The commissioner's office is not bound by the scale we have in the basic agreement."

“It was so hard, because I knew something worse could happen to me,” Cruz says. “If I wasn’t a free agent, it would have been different. It’s a totally different situation. I didn’t want to take 100 games next year. It’s part of the business.”

If the Rangers offered him a one year contract for $25 mil for 2014, knowing he wouldn't be paid at least a third of it, and then asked him to appeal, I could see their side of it. Otherwise, what does Cruz really owe the Rangers? They didn't have to pay him during his suspension.

The Rangers offered starter Matt Garza, All-Star closer Joe Nathan and outfielder David Murphy, but they were rejected, two high-ranking club officials told USA TODAY Sports.

Upton's settled in as a good-not-great player. The problem with that offer is, the Braves already have Kimbrel and had enough starters at the time (Hudson was not yet injured and Beachy was on rehab assignments).

Weiner also said the commissioner's office isn't bound by the terms of the joint drug prevention and treatment program -- which calls for 50- and 100-game suspensions followed by a lifetime ban for three failed drug tests -- because the players involved in the Biogenesis case did not fail tests and are being investigated for "non-analytical" reasons."

Careful. I doubt this is quite what he said.

The JDA is pretty clear on this one (emph added). Clause 7A: A player who tests positive for a PES, or otherwise violates the Program through the use or possession of a PES, will be subject to the discipline set forth below ... which is followed by the standard 50/100/life penalties. Possession would seem to be what these guys are getting hit for. (Note, legal conviction of possession carries a stiffer penalty.)

ARod is possibly being "charged" with something not covered in the JDA or at least something that goes beyond possession and "participation in the sale" -- i.e. the "obstruction" stuff.

Wiener's comment probably is referring to Clause 7G(2) which is the "just cause" catch-all clause which has no specific penalties laid out. But that clause specifically only applies to violations not covered in sections 7A-7F. Possession is covered in 7A and so can't possibly fall under 7G(2).

I have noted here that the notification clause seems to be assuming a testing violation not necessarily multiple instances of possession over several seasons so I think there may still be room for MLB to argue that ARod gets more than 50 games under the JDA. But it's not clear MLB is contesting that -- their press release specifically referenced JDA and CBA violations and Weiner made a statement that implied they were contesting the CBA violation not the JDA. We do know they got Braun to take 65 games somehow without the union squawking. There may be lots of reasons for that of course (along the lines Cruz mentions plus being annoyed with Braun).

On Cruz ... I agree with the person who basically noted that if the Rangers wanted Cruz to play 50 games this year while surrendering 50-100 next year, then they should have come up with some means to compensate him for that. It's an F'ing business and if he was hitting like Francoeur, they'd have been thrilled for him to take the suspension and save them money.

That said, it's an interesting decision for Cruz. He's making $10.5 M this year so the suspension costs him $3 M this year. I'm not convinced he'll make more than that next year -- he'll be 33, he's only a bit above-average offensively for his position, not a good defender and now he's got the taint. Financially speaking, he might have been better off appealing.

I'm thinking he'll be lucky to get Cuddyer money, I'm guessing more in the Melky-Ludwick range, maybe worse.

Fair enough, teams wouldn't be in a hurry and might not even sign him until the suspension was winding down and then they might want him to prove that he's back (112-game, incentive laden contract with a vesting option?) so maybe he is better off taking the suspension now. Also he'd have been in a shitstorm if he'd appealed whereas everybody will have pretty much forgotten about it by next year. But I think it's pretty close and maybe he shoulda taken the money (plus fun of being in a playoff run) now.

I think what Weiner was saying is that the union wouldn't help players attempt to avoid suspensions entirely when it's obvious they're guilty. If MLB had suspended Cruz 100 games for the first offense I'm sure they would support his appeal to bring it down to 50.

I'll admit that I didn't follow Cruz's case closely, but has anyone explained why MLB thought it could legitimately suspend Cruz for 100 games on a first-time offense?

Well, first, you have to understand the structure of the discipline clause 7 of the JDA. There are various clauses 7A - 7G that players can be suspended under.

To specifically address your question, first, not all the first offenses carry a max of 50 games. For example, MLB could get to 100 games on a first offense under 7F for participating in the sale or distribution.

Secondly, MLB could argue that they can stack first offenses across various provisions of the JDA, e.g., 50 games on a first offense for use or possession under 7A (which doesn't have to be a failed test) plus 100 games for a first offense for participating in the sale or distribution under 7F, equals 150 games. I think it's plausible they'd be able to successfully argue something like this.

Thirdly, MLB could argue that they can stack offenses to get straight to a second or third offense, e.g., if they have evidence that he was using in separate seasons. I am on record here as predicting flat out that this argument would fail, that the arbitrator would find that you can't get to a second offense until you have been "convicted" and punished for a first offense, with notice that your next offense will subject you to heightened penalties.

Fourthly, MLB could argue for additional games under the 7G "catch-all" which says: "A player may be subjected to disciplinary action for just cause by the Commissioner for any player violation of Section 2 above not referenced in Section 7A through 7F above." It has been suggested that MLB could get ARod for "obstruction" under this clause. I don't see it. Section 2 relates to prohibited substances. I don't see where they could fit obstruction into that. I don't think they can get ARod on obstruction under the JDA; they'd have to get him under a general provision of the CBA, which in my view would fail. The other thing is that I don't see an argument for attaching a wild penalty to clause 7G that far exceeds the penalties in the other sections. Finally, precedent hurts MLB here because all of the other BioG players got 50-65 games, and if we want to talk about obstruction then Melky got a total of 50 games for setting up a fake website.

Anyway, back to the initial question: there are various ways MLB could try to get Cruz for more than 50 games, if they wanted to. Some more viable than others. As to ARod, I obviously haven't seen the evidence but I am on record predicting that he will end up with 50-100 games max. (I assume that they at least have evidence of use or possession getting him to 50 games but who knows.)

[7C: Failure to comply with an initial evaluation or a treatment program]

[7D: Marijuana, Hashish, and Synthetic THC violations]

[7E: Conviction for the Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance]

7F: Participation in the Sale or Distribution of a Prohibited Substance

"A player who participates in the sale or distribution of a Prohibited Substance shall be subject to the following discipline:"

1. First offense: 80-100 games if a PES, or 60-90 games if a stimulant or doa
2. Second offense: permanent suspension if a PES or 2 years if a stimulant or doa.

7G2: "A player may be subjected to disciplinary action for just cause by the Commissioner for any player violation of Section 2 above
[Section 2 relates to prohibited substances] not referenced in Section 7A through 7F above."